Rajasthan Court March 1990 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. 1. P. N. Sachdev. (D. B. I. T. R. No. 4 ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-11-1990
Reported in: (1992)87CTR(Raj)10; [1992]193ITR498(Raj)
On an application made by the Department under section 256(1), the following question has been referred to the High Court for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduct the full amount of tax deducted at source by the Government of the foreign country from the tax payable on the said income in India ?'The dispute relates to the assessees claim for tax deducted at source of Rs. 4,776. The Income-tax Officer gave credit only for half of his figure, as, according to him, half of the income was exempt under section 80RRA. The Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal which was dismissed by the order dated November 28, 1985. Thereafter, it filed an application under section 256(1) and, on that application, the question mentioned above was referred to the High Court for its opinion.In CIT v. Dr. R. N. Jhanji , this court held that an assessee is not entitled to relief under ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. (Bom)bay Motor.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-10-1990
Reported in: (1992)86CTR(Raj)73; [1992]193ITR643(Raj); [1992]53TAXMAN180(Raj)
At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of the High Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to levy the impugned penalties ?'The facts relevant are these :The assessee was a registered firm. For the assessment year 1972-73, the assessment was completed on November 15, 1973, by the Income-tax Officer. At the time of completing the assessment, the Income-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 (Act No. 41 of 1975). Since the minimum penalty leviable exceeded rupees one thousand, the Income-tax Officer referred the matter to the Inspection Assistant Commissioner who imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) on July 8, 1976.In respect of the assessment year 1973-74, the return was f...
Bhikha and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-09-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN84
R.S. Verma, J.1. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, vide his judgment dated 10-11-1976 rendered in Sessions Case No 54/74 has convicted appellant Bhika of an offence Under Section 302, IPC and has sentenced him to under go imprisonment for life. He has convicted Bhika of offence Under Section 148 IPC and has sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for nine months and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. He has also convicted him of offences Under Sections 325 and 323 read with 149, IPC but has refrained from passing any separate sentences on these counts.2. Appellants Mohabbat Singh, Ganpat Singh, Jethia, Gunia Rama, Bena Ram, Aasu Ram, Deva Kam Gayad, Jai Ram and Ugia have been convicted by the same judgment for offence Under Section 148, IPC and each one of them has been sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 10/- & in default to under go further imprison-ment for one mo...
Ram Charan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-1990
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)74
M B. Sharma, J.1. It was urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that because non-compliance with the provision of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short P.F Act) reed with rule 9 A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. 1955 (for short 'the Rules'). The accused has been denied a valuable right given to him Under Section 13(2) of the P.F. Act. Though this point does not appear to have been taken either in the trial court or in the appellate court, but it is a point that can be decided on the available material and therefore the learned Counsel for the petitiner was allowed to agitated this ground.2. The accused petitioner has been convicted Under Section 7/16 of P.F. Act and the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate while convicting, the accused petitioner as aforesaid under his judgment dated 11-10-1984 sentenced to him undergo 6 months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of which to further suffer 3 mont...
Dhulla Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-1990
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN654
A.K. Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction of the accused appellant by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta dated 3-1-1986 whereby the learned Judge has convicted the accused appellant under Section 302 read with s. 34 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 5 months rigorous imprisonment. The learned Sessions Judge also convicted the accused appellant Under Section 201 IPC and sentenced him to three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment. The accused appellant was also convicted Under Section 404 IPC and sentenced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. The learned Sessions Judge also directed that the camel and Chhakra which are in possession of Bhanwarlal son of Sabla Ram may be giv...
Mohan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-06-1990
Reported in: AIR1990Raj156; 1(1990)WLN(Rev)277
M.C. Jain, J. 1. By this writ petition, petitioner seeks to quash the notice Ex. 2 dated 29-6-79 Under Section 15(2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973. The petitioner's case is that proceedings under the old ceiling law could be reopened by issuance of notice up to 30-6-79, in the present case, according to the petitioner, notice was not issued up to 30-6-79. Itwas issued on 4-7-79. Although the notice itself bears the date 29-6-79. By this notice Ex. 2, the petitioner was required to appear on 28-9-79. The contention of the petitioner is that mere signing of the notice is not sufficient. Actual issuance of notice is necessary up to the date specified in Section 15(2) of the Act and the specified date is 30-6-79 for issuance of notice. The petitioner clearly averred the fact of the date of issue of notice as 4-7-79. There appears an endorsement to that effect on the notice itself.2. Despite notice, no counter to the writ petition has been filed. ...
Moola Ram Vs. Laxmi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-06-1990
Reported in: II(1991)DMC458; 1990(1)WLN577
A.K. Mathur, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the Judgment dated 1.2.1990 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Jodhpur, by which an amount of Rs. 250/- per month was allowed as maintenance allowance to respondent Laxmi and Rs. 150/- per month to the daughther Moha.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant has strenuously contended that the husband was and still is ready and willing to keep the wife, but she is reluctant to live with him and as such the question of the husband treating the wife with cruelty does not arise and there cannot be Justification for allowing the maintenance allowance to the wife and the daughter.3. The learned Judge has discussed in detail the evidence on record and has arrived at the conclusion that as the husband was not prepared to live separate from his sister and brother-in-law against whom the wife has alleged Ill-treatment with her, the wife was justified in living separate from the husband. The learned Judge has also taken i...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Janki Dass.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-06-1990
Reported in: (1992)87CTR(Raj)7; [1992]193ITR580(Raj)
At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred by the tribunal for the opinion of the High Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing interest of Rs. 5,758 to the firm on the ground that the interest was paid to the Hindu undivided family of the partners and not to them individually ?'The brief facts are that the assessee-firm credited interest of Rs. 5,758 in the account of the Hindu undivided family relying on the order relating to the assessment year 1975-76. The said claim of the assessee-firm was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer. In the next year, the Income-tax Officer held that the interest that was credited to the Hindu undivided family was, in fact, paid on the capital of the partners and, therefore, that was not allowable under the Income-tax Act. The assessee-firm took up the matter in appeal. The appeal taken by the assessee was rejected by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. But...
Narayan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-06-1990
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN370
M.C. Jain, Actg. C.J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner seeks a declaration that the termination of his services is illegal and that the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.2. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner was given appointment on the post of Forest Guard vide order dated 17-11-1988 in pursuance of his selection by the Selection Board. The petitioner's name was forwarded by the Employment Exchange, Chittorgarh in pursuance of the advertisement dated November 24, 1987. The petitioner's appointment was made after regular selection in Famine Relief Work. The petitioner was posted vide order Anx. 2 dated November 23, 1988 in the Office of the Assistant Conservator of Forests Patrolling Party, Pratapgarh. Subsequently, the Government created permanent posts of Forest Guards and out of the list which was prepared by the Selection Board, on the basis of which appointment orders were issued, appointments were made vide order A...
Ram Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-05-1990
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)77
M.B. Sharma, J.1. The conviction of the accused petitioner Under Section 304A, IPC has been affirmed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Ajmer under his judgment dated 19-11-1988, the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer 15 days simple imprisonment have also been affirmed. The said conviction was recorded and sentence imposed on the accused person by the learned trial court under his judgment dated 4-1-1986.2. One Mangu was run over by Truck No. RJE 8001 which the accused was driving on 1-9-1982. The courts below placed reliance on the evidence of Udai Singh PW 5 the eye witness who supported the case of the prosecution, the other two did not support and has held that the accused petitioner was the driver of the Truck and was driving the Truck sashly and negligently at the time of accident. The accused petitioner did not deny that he was driving the Truck but his case in his statement Under Section ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »